HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 06/11/1998CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
40 (Approved Minutes)
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, June 11, 1998, in the
Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Martin Breth, Dan Keating, Eva Lieser, Diane Shannon and William Stockover
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Gustafson and Tom Sibbald
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator
Delynn Coldiron, Staff Support to Board
AGENDA:
1. ROLL CALL:
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Stockover and roll call taken.
2. The Minutes from the May 14, 1998 meeting were approved.
3. APPEAL 2218 — Approved:
Address:
318 Edwards Street
Petitioner:
Ellen Audley, Owner
Zone:
NCM
Section:
3.8.3(1)
Back rg ound:
The variance would allow a home occupation to be conducted in a detached building instead
of within the home. Specifically, the variance would allow a music teaching business to be
conducted in the existing 12' x 18' detached building that is located just behind the house.
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 2
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The house is quite small, 700 sq. feet, so there isn't any unused space within the dwelling.
(Peter noted that Chairperson Shannon had arrived for the meeting and was able to participate
in this appeal since discussion has not begun.)
Staff Comments:
The Board has granted a number of similar requests for properties in the older part of town
when the request is to use an existing building. Many of these properties have detached
garages, rather than attached garages, as are common in newer areas. People with attached
garages do not need variances to operate home occupations from the garage.
Barnes presented slides relative to this variance request. At some point in the past, the
detached garage on this property was remodeled into a room. It is the only detached building
existing on the property. The detached building is fairly close in proximity to the house. The
driveway ends in front of the building.
The owner's request is to allow this detached building to be used in conjunction with the
home occupation of music teaching. The business has been ongoing for a while, but the
owner was unaware of the need for a variance to allow her to do this until just recently. She
is now coming forward to request a variance to allow her to continue to conduct her home
occupation business in the detached building.
Board Questions:
0114 �
Applicant Participation:
Applicant Ellen Audley addressed the Board. She mentioned that she became aware for the
need for a variance at a soccer game. She is now pursuing a variance to correct her current
situation. Audley works 'h time at CSU in the mornings and works % time teaching music
lessons from her home. She has two kids, ages 10 and 6, who get out of school at 3:00 p.m.
Having half of her income come from teaching music lessons allows her to be home with her
children when they return from school.
Audley is a professional musician and teaches mandolin lessons. She has students who come
from Evans, Greeley, Loveland and Cheyenne since she is the only mandolin teacher in the
area. She gives approximately 20 lessons per week. She has 38 students. Most of the adults
come every other week; students under 14 come 3-4 times per month. The younger students
are typically dropped off by their parents and require no parking. To accommodate adult
students who need parking, one parking space is available at the front of the driveway and
• • ZBA
June 11,1998
Page 3
usually two spaces in front of the house since most lessons occur during the day prior to
neighbors returning home from work.
Audley's house is only 700 sq. ft. and the family fully utilizes the space for living area.
Having the ability to work out of her home gives Audley the opportunity to spend her time
more wisely, spend time with her children, helps keep her lessons more affordable since there
is less overhead, and allows her to contribute her specialized talent to the community,
specifically, to the children.
Audley has contacted everyone in the neighborhood who owns a home and was able to get
signatures from all but the three owners, whom she could not reach, in support of her home
occupation. She also mentioned that this home occupation has added value to the property
due to the improvements made to the detached building.
Public Participation:
Ralph Kile addressed the Board. He is the owner of the property directly east at 320
Edwards. He has owned this rental property for 15-16 years. He spoke highly of the
Audleys as neighbors. He had no objections to the requested variance and mentioned that
parking has never been a problem for his renters.
Gordon Wolfley addressed the Board. He is the owner of the property at the corner of
Edwards and Mathews. He mentioned that he supports the requested variance. Audley has
been a good neighbor. She taught music lessons from the Wolfley home for a period of time.
The lessons were not obnoxious or noisy. Wolfley serves as an executive officer for the
International Optimist Foundation. This Foundation supports youth. Audley has been an
avid supporter of youth. 14 of Audley's students are under 13 years of age. This is good for
the neighborhood. He had no concerns.
Staff read a letter that had been received in support of the variance which had been signed by
adjacent neighbors, renters and an owner. Barnes mentioned that additional letters in support
of the variance were available for the Board's review if they were interested.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Leiser made a motion to approve Appeal 2218 for the hardship stated. Board
Member Keating seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None
Appeal 2218 was approved.
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 4
4. APPEAL 2219 — Approved with Conditions:
Address: 335 Park Street
Petitioner: James Lynn Elliott, Owner
Zone: NCM
Section: 4.7 (E)(4)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required side yard setback on a corner lot from 15' to 5'. Specifically,
the variance would allow a new 24' x 36' detached garage to be constructed T from the north lot line
instead of the required 15'.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The lot is 50' wide, but it is very deep. Moving the building south will put it closer to the neighbor's
lot and will result in a long driveway. Moving it south will also eliminate an existing storage area
for campers, etc.
Staff Comments:
Moving the building south so that the required 15' setback is met will still leave the building
I from the neighbor's lot. Only a 5' setback from the neighbor's lot is required. The
building is quite large, it could be made smaller, or turned so that access is from the alley,
rather than the street.
Barnes presented slides related to this appeal. This property is a comer lot located at Cherry
and Park Street. Along the street side lot line of a corner lot, a 15' setback is required. The
Applicant's proposal is to remove an existing detached building and construct a three car
garage which is 864 sq. ft. in size, in the same approximate location. The access that the
Petitioner is proposing would come from Cherry Street. There is an existing curb cut that is
not currently being used since there were no public improvements done to finish this.
Board Ouestions:
Board Member Keating asked how far the present detached building was from the lot line.
Barnes clarified the lot line that Board Member Keating was questioning. The building along
Cherry Street is 1' from the property line. The property line is approximately 15' in from the
curb, plus an additional 4' for the queuing space required by zoning ordinance which makes
it possible to park a vehicle on the driveway pad without encroaching onto the sidewalk or
into the street. There is no existing sidewalk in this location. The City's Engineering
Department has no immediate plans for sidewalk improvements in the area.
Chairperson Shannon asked Barnes to point out the location of the new building as compared
to the existing building.
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 5
Board Member Leiser clarified that the Petitioner was proposing accessing the building from
Cherry Street rather than the alley. She asked if there were any problems with using the alley
for access. Barnes mentioned that there were no problems with using the alley for access.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant Lynn Elliott addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is the owner of the
property at 335 Park Street and that his family has owned this property for 48 years. The
existing garage is in bad shape. It has a wood floor that is rotting and he would like to
replace the building and add some additional storage space. The storage behind the existing
building is used for a trailer and camper. He wants to keep these items away from the street
due to the problems they have had with graffiti on the garage.
Chairperson Shannon asked the Applicant if he had considered alternative locations that
would be in compliance with applicable codes. She mentioned that there seemed to be ample
space which would allow the Applicant to construct the garage without needing a variance.
Applicant responded that to do this would require that the building be constructed within 5'
of his fence, which would eliminate the storage space that is currently being used for his
trailer and camper.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Stockover asked if this proposal meets code relating to the width of curb cuts.
Barnes mentioned that the City does allow curb cuts for three car wide garages. To get an
actual curb cut, a curb cut permit must be obtained from the City's Engineering Department.
Engineering would look at the issues involved and make a recommendation.
Stockover asked if the curb cut construction would be required to be concrete or gravel.
Barnes answered that anything within the public right-of-way must be concrete.
Stockover asked about where the starting point of the queuing space would be should
sidewalk improvements be made in the future. Barnes mentioned that this would start from
the back of the sidewalk. Stockover asked about the width of a future sidewalk. Barnes was
uncertain what this measurement would be. Stockover had some concerns regarding the
measurements provided on the plans. Applicant, Lynn Elliott, provided clarification on this.
Chairperson Shannon mentioned that she is having a hard time finding a hardship with this.
There seems to be ample room to manipulate the location of the garage and access can come
off of the alley.
Board Member Breth mentioned that he, too, was having somewhat of a hard time finding a
hardship; however, this situation does qualify under the hardship of a narrow lot. He was
supportive of a compromise. He understood why the Applicant might not want to access the
garage from the alley — there is no visibility from the house to the garage doors and it would
pull the garage to the east a little bit. He suggested that the Applicant move the building 5'
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 6
more to the south, instead of the full 10', to accommodate any future sidewalk and the
required queuing space.
Board Member Stockover concurred with this suggestion. He mentioned that moving the
building 5' more to the south would bring the building exactly the same distance as the
current house is from the street.
Board Member Stockover made a motion that Appeal 2219 be approved on the hardship
stated, but require that this be a 10' setback, instead of a 5' setback. Board Member Breth
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None.
Appeal 2219 was approved with the condition that the setback be 10' instead of the 5' that
was requested..
5. APPEAL 2220 — Moved to the End of Meeting Agenda:
Address:
913 E. Laurel Street
Petitioner:
Elmer Herbertson
Zone:
NCB
Sections:
3.2.2(M)(1), 3.2.2(J), 3.8.11(2)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required 6% interior parking lot landscaping to 0%, reduce the
required 5' landscape strip along the west, east, and the south lot lines to 0', and allow chain link
fencing with slats to be used for screening purposes instead of a wood or masonry privacy fence.
(The existing chain link fence would be modified by adding slats in order to achieve the required
screening.).
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter. In addition, all of the lot is used for storage or for vehicular access, with a
portion of the vehicular traffic being semi -truck traffic, requiring large turning radiuses. To
landscape this site would severely hamper the use of this site as it is used today. Similar variances
were approved in 1993, but the paving project was never started and additional land has now been
added to the site, necessitating the need for a new variance request.
Staff Comments:
None.
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 7
Peter Barnes asked if there was an applicant or representative in the audience to speak about
this variance. There were none. Barnes explained the various options the Board could
pursue.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Keating made a motion that this item be moved to the end of today's agenda
for reconsideration at that time. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Leiser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None.
Appeal 2220 was moved to the end of today's agenda.
6. APPEAL 2221 — Moved to the end of Meeting Agenda:
Address: 629 W. Mountain Avenue
Petitioner: Susan Rogers and David Haimson, Owners
Zone: NCM
Sections: 4.7(E)(4)
Back rg ound:
The variance would reduce the required street side setback along the Loomis Avenue property line
from 15' to 11'6", in order to allow the existing rear porch to be removed and a new one-story, 6,000
sq. ft. addition to be constructed at the rear of the home.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardshiu:
In order to allow the existing basement stairway to remain in the home, the addition must be located
closer than the required 15'. the addition will still be located 3.5' further away from the property line
than the existing home setback. The home is small, 875 sq. ft., and the addition will add another
bedroom, bathroom, and utility room. There is also a 90 year old tree that constrains the design of
the addition.
Staff Comments:
None.
Peter Barnes asked if there was an applicant or representative in the audience to speak about
this variance. There were none.
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 8
Board Discussion:
Board Member Keating made a motion that this item be moved to the end of today's agenda
for reconsideration at.that time. Board Member Stockover seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Leiser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None.
Appeal 2221 was moved to the end of today's agenda
7. APPEALS 2222, 2223, 2224 —Approved with Conditions:
Address: 280 N. Mason Street, 217 N. Mason Street, 315 N. Mason Street
Petitioner: City of Fort Collins, Owner
Zone: D Zone
Sections: 3.2.2(M)(1), 3.2.2(E)(4), 3.2.2(G)(2)(b), 3.2.2(J), 3.2.2(C)(5)(b), 3.2.1(E)(4)(b)
Back rg ound:
The variance would reduce the required interior parking lot landscape from 10% to 0%, eliminate the
requirement to provide landscape islands at the end of parking rows, allow parking rows to consist of
more than 15 parking spaces in a row without an intervening landscape island, eliminate the required
5' landscape setback along the interior property lines in Blocks 32 and 33, reduce the average
landscape width along Mason adjacent to Block 22 from the required 15' to 10', eliminate the
requirement to install patterned concrete at crosswalks within the parking lots, and allow some of the
required parking lot screening to be installed at a later date (when construction of the future
buildings is coming to completion). The variances are requested in order to allow a temporary
parking lot for approximately two years, during the construction of the new courthouse and parking
structure.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter. In addition, it is necessary to provide temporary parking during the
construction of the parking garage, courthouse, and new City office building. Since it isn't known
precisely at this time where the proposed buildings on the lots and where the permanent parking lot
locations will be, it is impractical to construct the interior landscape improvements at this time.
Staff Comments:
None.
Barnes briefly reviewed the construction projects that have been proposed for the downtown
civic center area including a new county courthouse facility, a new City office building and a
new transit facility. In order to accommodate temporary parking during the construction of
these improvements, the City and other agencies are working on providing temporary parking
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 9
on currently unimproved lots. When the parking structure begins construction, which is
scheduled for the end of 1998, this will displace all of the parking that is available in the
LaPorte America lot. The courthouse facility, once construction begins, will displace all of
the parking that is available on Block 31.
Barnes presented slides related to these appeals. He reviewed the construction and
demolition activity that will be taking place. He also reviewed the location of the temporary
parking lots that are to be constructed. Barnes mentioned that the surfacing of the parking lot
will be reconstituted/recycled asphalt. One of the requirements of the parking code is some
sort of hard surface. Staff has investigated the reconstituted/recycled asphalt and it does
constitute an acceptable surface. Sidewalks will be constructed as part of this proposal
wherever sidewalks are currently not in place to accommodate pedestrian traffic from the
people who will be using these temporary lots. The proposal includes compliance with
required street tree planting, and will also include an irrigation system and irrigated turf. The
City is requesting variances on all of the interior design elements of the parking lots which
includes a certain amount of interior parking lot landscape islands, landscape islands at the
end of all of the parking rows and a few other items which are referenced in Board Member
packets.
Board Ouestions:
Chairperson Shannon asked about the plans for the temporary parking areas once
construction has been completed. Barnes stated that the Board could consider putting a time
limit condition on any variance approval which would prevent continued usage of these
parking lots unless they were brought into compliance with all related codes. Once the City
office building is constructed, there will be a permanent parking lot constructed which will
replace the temporary parking lot. The permanent parking lot will conform to all related
codes, unless modifications are obtained from the Planning and Zoning Board or other
variances are obtained from this Board. If the deadline given by the Board is not long
enough due to construction delays, etc., the City would need to come back to the Board and
request new variances.
Board Member Keating asked if Block 33 was owned by the City. Barnes answered that it is
owned by the City.
Applicant Participation:
Jack Gianola, Special Projects Manager for the City of Fort Collins, and Suzanne Edminster,
Transportation, Planning and Parking Services Manager for the City of Fort Collins,
addressed the Board.
Gianola provided Board Members with background information on the construction activity
that will be taking place and the associated timelines. He mentioned that the proposed
parking lots are needed to accommodate parking needs for the permit holders in existing lots
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 10
and downtown customers until the parking structure has been completed. Staff is estimating
that it will take two years to get this construction completed.
Edminster shared that the temporary parking lots will provide a 1 for 1 replacement of the
existing spaces that are available on the Block 31 and LaPorte America parking lots. There is
no net gain in space. Barnes added that the City would lose approximately 10% of the
number of parking stalls if interior landscaping design requirements must be met. He also
added that putting in interior landscaping without knowing the final design of the building
layouts, would require that the landscaping be removed at some future date. The perimeter
landscaping will be in place regardless of building location, etc.
Public Participation:
Chip Steiner addressed the Board on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority. He
mentioned that the granting of these variances would alleviate three hardships:
1) Employees in the central business district. By providing an equivalent amount of
parking, they will be able to get to/from work almost as efficiently as they could
before.
2) Customers who come to the central business district. Parking will not be
restricted, only located a little further from the major shopping areas. This will
continue to support downtown businesses.
3) Taxpayers. Reducing the cost of providing this temporary parking eliminates
some of the hardship on the taxpayers.
Frank Lancaster, Manager from Latimer County, addressed the Board. He mentioned that
the County is a partner with the City in the parking garage project. Because of the nature of
the downtown area, there is a limitation on space. This presents a unique need to provide
adequate parking to assure that the commercial center remains viable. He briefly addressed
interior landscaping issues and mentioned that it doesn't make a lot of sense to put in trees
and landscaping that will just end up being torn out. This is not in the best interest of the
Community.
In the parking lot agreement, one of the conditions is that the temporary parking lots will be
decommissioned as soon as the parking structure is opened.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Breth mentioned that he would welcome the additional parking provided by
the temporary parking lots on a long-term basis provided that at the time the temporary lots
were changed into permanent lots, they were brought into compliance with all related codes.
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 11
Board Member Lieser clarified that if a time limit was imposed should these variances be
granted, once that time limit had expired, the parking lots would either have to be brought
into compliance with all related codes, or the City would be required to come back to the
Board for additional variances. Barnes mentioned that if the temporary lots were to be
changed into permanent lots, the City would have to submit a development plan that
complies with all related standards, codes, etc. He confirmed that the City would need to
come back to this Board for any further variances.
Board Member Keating concurred with Breth. He was supportive of a time constraint being
imposed should these variances be granted.
Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2222 on the hardship stated, with the condition
that there be a time limit of two years imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary
parking lots. Board Member Lieser seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Shannon, Stockover
Nays: Breth
The motion to approve Appeal 2222 was approved with the condition that a two year time
limit be imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary parking lots.
Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2223 on the hardship stated, with the condition
that there be a time limit of two years imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary
parking lots. Board Member Lieser seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None
The motion to approve Appeal 2223 was approved with the condition that a two year time
limit be imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary parking lots.
Keating made a motion to approve Appeal 2224 on the hardship stated, with the condition
that there be a time limit of two years imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary
parking lots. Board Member Lieser seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Lieser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None
The motion to approve Appeal 2224 was approved with the condition that a two year time
limit be imposed from the time of occupancy of the temporary parking lots.
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 12
7. APPEAL 2225 — Withdrawn:
Address: 401 Linden Center Drive
Petitioner: Joel Lerich, Owner
Zone: E
Sections: 3.3.5 (refers to Engineering Design Standards), 1.6.5
Background:
The variance would allow the required new sidewalk be eliminated from the site plan. The walk has
not been installed and the owners do not wish to install it.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
Above grade utilities: 2 light poles, 2 telephone utility boxes, 1 cable box are located along street
where sidewalk is proposed. See enclosed letter.
Staff Comments:
Since the addition enlarges the existing building by more than 25%, Section 1.6.5(B) requires
that the property shall be brought into compliance with the applicable standards of the Code
"to the extent reasonably feasible." This term means that "under the circumstances,
reasonable efforts have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of
compliance clearly outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably
burden the proposed project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any
potential harm or adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation."
Normally, the Board should not consider costs as a hardship, however, in this case the Board
can consider costs since the Code section that requires compliance allows costs to be a
determining factor. If the Board wants to consider such a hardship, then it must find that the
costs outweigh the benefits to the public, and any potential harm or adverse impacts resulting
from noncompliance are minimal.
Barnes mentioned that this Appeal was withdrawn. The City Transportation Services
Department and the Applicant have reached a compromise solution on the sidewalk that was
in question.
• ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 13
7. APPEAL 2226 — Approved with Conditions:
Address: 2211 S. College Avenue
Petitioner: New University Mall, LLC, by Tony Kill
Zone: C
Sections: 387(G)(6)
Background:
The variance would allow a property to have two freestanding signs along College Avenue instead of
the one freestanding sign allowed per street. Specifically, the variance would allow the new
"University Center" to have two freestanding signs on their College Avenue frontage instead of the
one sign allowed by code.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
The street frontage along College Avenue for this center is exceptionally long. There are two
driveway access points, but only one sign is allowed. New addition to the south is obscured from
site due to McDonalds directly in front. Addition is 45' back from the existing mall front due to
street access, again obscuring from view on College.
Staff Comments:
This shopping center is unique in that it is the only large center in the City that doesn't have
more than one street frontage. The other large centers have 2, 3, or 4 street frontages, and
therefore are allowed more than one freestanding sign. Even though they are only allowed
one per street, they can strategically locate them at corners. This generally results in more
than one freestanding sign visible from any one street. The Applicant is requesting one
primary sign and one secondary sign, however, both signs are identical. If the Board
considers the granting of a variance, conditions can be placed on it regarding size, height
and/or location.
Barnes presented slides related to this Appeal. The request in this Appeal is to allow one
additional freestanding sign for the University Mall. Presently, the property has one
freestanding sign which is nonconforming (120 sq. ft. per side). The proposal is to construct
two ground signs, each of those signs having approximately 75-80 sq. ft. for its sign face.
Barnes reviewed the proposed locations for each of the signs. He also reviewed the proposed
addition to the existing mall.
Barnes mentioned that there is a freestanding sign in front of Wards, but they are on their
own property/development.
N-XI
June 11, 1998
Page 14
Board Questions:
Chairperson Shannon asked if the proposed signs conform to code in terms of size. Barnes
answered that they do conform to code in terms of size and the setbacks are close. Staff has
not yet had a chance to analyze the site distance triangle. The signs would be allowed to be
located in the proposed locations, however, the setback may need to be adjusted back a
couple of feet.
Chairperson Shannon clarified that the issue before the Board was the allowance of two
signs. Barnes clarified that this was the case.
Board Member Keating asked for clarification on sign allowances. Barnes mentioned that
the sign allowance is based on the length of the building and it is up to the property manager
or landlord to adequately disburse the total sign allowance amongst all of the tenants. Both
sides of a ground sign count as signage. This amount would be deducted from the total sign
allowance available. Whatever is left could be applied to building mounted signage.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Tony Kill, of DPC Development, addressed the Board. He reiterated that they are
applying for a sign variance for a second sign along the street frontage on College Avenue.
He mentioned that DPC Development bought the mall last year for $5 million dollars and
they are proposing about $7 million dollars of renovations. The center has been failing for
the last 10 years. They are hoping to rejuvenate the center. The existing site is difficult -- the
building is outdated. They plan to convert the building to a more modern retail center.
The economics for redeveloping this center are dramatic. The majority of the money will be
spent remodeling the existing building. The new addition being proposed on the south end is
the portion of the center where it is anticipated that the economics will start making a profit.
This addition will sit behind McDonalds and is about 45' back from the face of the existing
center. The new landscaping will include many more trees, berms and additional bushes and
landscaping, all of which will further obscure the views of the building.
There are two drive points for entry into the center, but only one sign currently allowed.
Contacts with potential tenants have shown that they are either not interested, or very
concerned, about the fact that a second sign is not allowed at the second entrance. This
second entrance will more directly serve the new addition on the south of the property.
Without additional signage, the viability of this development is questionable.
Kill restated that fact that the University Mall setup is unique. It is an unusually long, nearly
1,000 ft. with the new addition, and yet it is only accessible by one street. More typically,
shopping centers have entrances from at least two major streets, which would allow for a
second sign.
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 15
Board Member Keating asked the Applicant about signage plans. Kill answered that there is
an allowance for this development of roughly 1,300 total sq. ft. It is anticipated that each
tenant with have a store fascia sign that is mounted on the building that is roughly 140-150
sq. ft. total. All of the major tenants would get approximately 150 sq. ft. The smaller tenants
would get approximately 60-70 sq. ft. These amounts would be subtracted out of the overall
signage available and the amount left over would be distributed between the ground signs at
the street. If a variance is granted for the second ground sign, the store front allocation for
building signs will be reduced so that the ground signage can be increased.
There was brief discussion on the two additional accesses into the center near Wards. There
was also discussion about whether it is anticipated that the Wards site will be made a part of
the center. Applicant Kill mentioned that there have been discussions with the owners of the
Wards building, but nothing has been determined at this point.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Keating asked if Barnes would run through the slides another time. He also
presented a slide given to him by Applicant Kill of the approved landscaping for the site.
Board Member Leiser mentioned that one issue to be considered is that the traffic is very fast
along this stretch of College Avenue. She also mentioned that she has lived in Ft. Collins for
35 years and this mall has not been a good mall for 20 of those years and is now, for the most
part, ignored. She sympathized with the owners fears that customers would not know that the
mall is there. Without signage it will be hard to get the message to customers that the
development is new, etc. She was in support of the Applicant's variance request.
Chairperson Shannon concurred with Leiser. She mentioned that based on the landscaping
planned for the site she could see an even greater need for the additional signage.
Board Member Breth asked if there was a plan for the Skipper's building. Applicant Kill
mentioned that a sale is currently being negotiated with First Bank.
Board Member Keating supported the variance request.
Board Member Leiser made a motion to approve Appeal 2226 for the hardship stated, with
the condition that it meet any required setbacks. Board Member Stockover seconded the
motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Leiser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None
Appeal 2226 was approved with the condition that the signs meet any required setbacks.
ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 16
7. APPEAL 2227 — Approved with Conditions:
Address: 2842 Claremont Drive
Petitioner: Fred and Grace Martin, Owners
Zone: RL
Sections: 4.3(1))(2)(c), 4.3(D)(1)
Background:
The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback along the north lot line from 15' to 9' and
would allow the floor area of the home to exceed the 3:1 lot area to floor area ratio by 257 sq. ft.
The variance would allow the construction of a 2-story, 20' x 24' addition. The lower level would be
additional garage and the upper level would be living area. The total floor area of the home would
be 3,490 sq. ft. The maximum allowed square footage is 3,233 sq. ft.
Petitioner's Statement of Hardship:
See petitioner's letter. In addition, this is a corner lot where the house faces the legal street sideyard,
meaning that the legal rear yard functions as the sideyard, 5' setbacks are required for side yards.
Staff read a letter and fax from Charles and Anne Shackelford, neighbors of the Applicants, in
opposition to the variance requested. Staff read a letter from Buster and Margaret Chapman,
neighbors of the Applicants, supporting the requested variance.
Staff Comments:
This is a corner lot situation that the Board has dealt with before, wherein the legal rear yard
functions as a side yard. The Board has usually granted rear setback variances as long as the
addition complies with the required 5' side yard setback. In this instance, the addition will be
9' from the lot line in question.
Barnes presented slides related to this variance request. He mentioned that the proposed
project is a two-story addition. The lower level of the proposed addition is 20' x 24'. The
upper level of the proposed addition is 24' x 28'. He directed the Board's attention to the
architectural drawings that included these dimensions. Barnes also reviewed a plat that
provided information on the houses surrounding the Applicant's property. The plat shows
the square footage of the houses as it appears in the City's building records, the floor area of
the homes (does not include basements, finished or unfinished, or garages), the lot area to
floor area ratio, and the square footage of the lots.
Barnes mentioned that there are two parts to the variance that is being requested. The first
part is a request to reduce the setback along the north property line from 15' to 9'. By
definition, the legal front property line is the shortest of the two street frontages. The
frontage on Applicant's property is shorter on Swallow Avenue and, therefore, Swallow is
considered the legal front lot line. By definition, the lot line opposite the legal front is always
the legal rear regardless of the way the house is situated on the lot. In this particular instance,
• ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 17
the legal rear actually functions as the side. If this were a typical situation where the lot line
in question was a side lot line, a 5' setback would be required.
The second part of the variance request is to increase the floor area of the building that would
normally be allowed based on the 3:1 ratio. With the Applicant's lot being 9,699 sq. ft., the
maximum allowed square footage, excluding basement and any garage space, would be 3,233
sq. ft. The Applicant's proposed addition increases their existing floor area to 3,490 sq. ft.,
which is 257 sq. ft. larger than what they are allowed. There are some discrepancies with
respect to the current floor area of the Applicant's home.
Board Ouestions:
Board Member Leiser mentioned that if the larger numbers for floor area are accurate, the
Board could be considering an even larger variance than what has been requested. Barnes
confirmed this.
Board Members discussed the square footage amounts that appeared on the two building
permits related to Applicant's property. The initial square footage on the permit to construct
the residence indicated 2,492 sq. ft. The square footage on the permit for the addition was
not legible. Board Member Breth mentioned that 2,492 sq. ft. should be the starting point
since it was taken off of the plans at the time the plan review was done prior to the permit
being issued.
Applicant Participation:
Applicant, Fred Martin, addressed the Board. He started by clarifying the square footage
problem. He mentioned that they were assessed at 3,000 sq. ft. from the County. Applicants
measured the house on their own and came up considerably shorter than the 3,000 sq. ft.
Applicants then requested that the County come back out and measure for them. They did,
and that is how they arrived at the 2,818 sq. ft.
Board Member Leiser asked Applicant if the addition was included in the 2,818 sq. ft.
measurement. Applicant confirmed this and said that the measurements were taken only two
years ago. Board Member Leiser suggested that the Board work with the numbers that were
given by the County appraiser.
Applicant addressed his neighbor's concerns that he is working out of his home and needs the
extra space of the addition to support this. Martin mentioned that he does accident
reconstruction work. He is involved in the testing of sport utility vehicles for propensity to
roll over and also does a lot of research work. He does some model building, although it has
slowed down a lot due to the fact that a majority of this is now done by computer imaging.
ZBA
June 11,1998
Page 18
Martin also addressed the issue of whether or not his attic is finished. He clarified that his
attic is not finished; there is simply some flooring, insulation and a fan. The trusses that exist
in the attic make it virtually impossible to finish this area without a lot of work and expense.
It is used on a limited basis for storage.
Board Member Keating asked if Martin was referring to the room over the garage as the attic.
Martin clarified that the room over the garage was a bonus room and was accounted for in the
square footage numbers. The attic in this case is the area above the main house.
Martin mentioned that this addition is a stretch for them financially. They are building the
addition to allow his mother to come and live with them. They are trying to provide some
additional private space that can be used by his mom. The Martins have no intention of
turning this into an apartment and will not be constructing a kitchen or bathroom as part of
the addition. Mr. Martin would like to provide a separate entry to the home which would
allow his mom to come and go as she pleases; however, he wants it to be enclosed. They
could construct an outside staircase, but, due to aesthetics and safety, they would prefer to
have it enclosed. This additional exit would also provide the Martins with a fire exit from the
home.
Martin mentioned that he has been working with an architect on the location of the stairway
and has concluded that there is not a better place to put it. He wants to avoid having to
remove a Honey Locust tree in the backyard, which would be inevitable if the addition
extended any further back than what is proposed. Martin also mentioned that the current
plans are the best fit for tying the addition in to the current residence structurally and
economically.
The Martins researched over -ratio properties using County records. The records were not
current and they were not able to get good information.
Public Participation:
Charles Shackelford, owner of the property immediately north of the proposed extension,
addressed the Board. Shackelford asked the Board to consider the sheer magnitude of this
extension. Although the garage space is not included in the 3:1 lot to floor area ratio, that
additional space, plus the 672 sq. ft. top addition, represents approximately 1,152 sq. ft. of
addition. Shackelford's gross living area is 1,561 sq. ft. for their entire house. The proposed
addition represents 74% of the Shackelford's house.
Shackelford also asked the Board to consider the location of the proposed addition. He
mentioned that the letter supporting the proposed variance came from the neighbor on the
south side of the Martin residence. Shackelford is on the north side of the Martin residence;
the side that the proposed addition will be constructed. An external stairway, should one be
built, would be aesthetically displeasing.
• • ZBA
June 11, 1998
Page 19
This addition will be a minimum of 20' high. The proposed extension, since it will be within
5' of the fence, will essentially cover the Shackelford yard. The Shackelford home faces the
south, so the extension could, and probably will, be shading a part of the yard that is not
currently shaded. This makes the location of the proposed addition important. The
Shackelfords are against any addition beyond the 3:1 ratio in general. If the Martins were
able to get an addition approved, they would have no opposition if they constructed the
addition on the east side of their property.
The side entrance being proposed would be between the Shackelford and Martin homes.
This would increase the traffic between the houses. If the Martins put in security floodlights,
these could shine on the Shackelford yard and into their windows.
Shackelford ended by saying that this addition will significantly affect his property value and
he is in opposition to the proposal that has been submitted to the Board.
Board Discussion:
Board Member Keating asked Martin if he conducted a business from his home. Martin
clarified that he has an office in Littleton. He does a lot of work for a group of engineers
from that office. He does some of his planning from home, makes phone calls from home
and once in a while will build a small model, but he does not do the bulk of his business from
his home.
Board Member Leiser asked for clarifications on square footage amounts that were given by
staff. Barnes answered that he started with the information from the County, 2,818 sq. ft. He
did not include the lower level garage, but did include the second floor which was 24' 8" x
28' which comes to 690 sq. ft. He added that to 2,818 for a total of 3,508 sq. ft.
Board Member Stockover mentioned that he would not be supporting this issue. He was
concerned that when there is opposition it is up to the Board to follow strict guidelines. He
could not find anything that was not a self-imposed hardship. He mentioned that both sides
were very valid, but that the Board has a duty to stick with strict guidelines when there is a
conflict.
Board Member Keating stated that he could find no reason why the addition could not be
built in another location which would avoid the need for a variance. He was also concerned
with the proximity of the addition to the fence nearest to the Shackelfords. He also concurred
that he could not find a hardship that was not being self-imposed.
Chairperson Shannon concurred that the hardship was self-imposed.
Board Member Keating made a motion that Appeal 2227 be denied based the Board's
discussion that the hardship was self-imposed.
June 11, 1998
Page 20
Board Member Breth asked to discuss further the issues related to a corner lot situation. He
mentioned that this is a situation where on a corner lot, the rear lot line is the side lot line
because of the orientation of the house. Taking this into consideration, the Applicant could
build within 5' of the lot line. This being the case, the overage problem still remains.
Applicant, Grace Martin, addressed the Board. She wanted to clarify that if a variance is not
granted, they do intend to move forward with construction of an addition within the ratio
allowed and build an exterior staircase for access to the new addition.
Board Member Stockover asked if an exterior staircase would still be an encroachment even
though it was not considered living space. Barnes answered that an outside stairway would
have to fall within the required setbacks.
Barnes reviewed the options that were available for the Board. Board Members briefly
discussed and got clarification on those options.
Shackelford mentioned that he was aware that the Martins would move forward with
construction of an addition should their variance be denied. However, he was under the
impression that the Board could deny the whole extension, even if it conformed to the 3:1
ratio. If the project is changed to where it meets the 3:1 ratio, Shackelford commented that
he would still be concerned about the increased traffic between the two homes due to the
location of the proposed entrance.
Board Member Keating asked for clarification on the total amount of square footage that was
allowed in this situation. Barnes answered 3,233 sq. ft.
Leiser mentioned that the Applicant appears to have alternate plans to construct this addition
without having to obtain a variance, or needs a variance solely for the outside staircase. She
mentioned that she would not be supporting this variance if the addition could be done in
such a way that no variance was required. If a variance is required for the outside staircase,
it was her preference that this come back as a separate variance request with a new set of
plans.
Board Member Stockover mentioned that the Board has a responsibility to protect the rights
of the surrounding neighbors and reiterated the fact that this appears to be a self-imposed
hardship.
Board Member Keating restated his motion to deny Appeal 2227. Board Member Stockover
seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Stockover
Nays: Leiser, Shannon, Breth
• • ZBA
June 11,1998
Page 21
Applicants to construct an outside staircase. The overage on the floor area is not being
accepted. Board Member Leiser seconded the Motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Leiser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: Keating
Appeal 2227 was approved based on the hardship of a corner lot, for a setback reduction for
an outside stairway from 15' to 9'. The overage on the floor area was not approved by the
Board.
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
Board Member Leiser made a motion to table Appeals 2220 and 2221 to the July meeting to
allow the petitioners an opportunity to present their case since the applicants were not present
at today's meeting. Board Member Keating seconded the motion.
Vote:
Yeas: Keating, Leiser, Shannon, Breth, Stockover
Nays: None
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Diane Shannon, Chairperson Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator